The rise and rise and rise and epic fall of Cambridge professor Jason Arday could only happen in idiotic, idealistic, soppy, patronising, doomed Great Britain.

A place where many leading institutions – broadcasting, publishing, the Civil Service, the Church, the charity industry and yes, most certainly academia, too – are increasingly choked by the smoke of woke ideology, Leftist groupthink and an almost comical desperation to be seen on the politically correct side of the progressive divide.

A place where a man like Arday – dapper, dreadlocked, charismatic and, crucially for them, black – could flourish and thrive without too many questions asked about his florid claims to fame.

Many of those supporters who hired him, praised him and promoted him wanted to believe in him so badly that if Jason Arday had claimed to be Shergar they'd have given him a lump of sugar, a comforting pat and a nice bag of oats.

For Arday's success as a plagiarist and fantasist is propelled by exactly the same wrong-headed impulse – only in murderous reverse – that made police, on a dark winter night in Southampton in 2025, believe that it was Vickrum Digwa who had been the victim of a racist attack, and not 18-year-old white student Henry Nowak who had been stricken.

Why? Because in the corroded dogma of modern UK identity politics, the minority are always the victims and therefore must take priority; always to be feted on the moral high ground.

After being slashed five times by Digwa wielding his eight-inch ceremonial Sikh knife, a dying Harry pleaded to police officers: 'I've been stabbed.' One of them replied sneeringly: 'Don't think you have, mate.'

Only in the UK could a man like Jason Arday flourish and thrive without too many questions asked about his florid claims to fame, says Jan Moir

It's the same wrong-headed impulse – only in murderous reverse – that made police believe Henry Nowak's killer, Vickrum Digwa, was the victim of a racist attack, not the white student

Don't think you have, mate? Hideous, of course, but why did no one say this to Arday when he told his fanciful stories – that he couldn't read or write until he was 18 and then, shazam, produced an elaborate doctorate about five minutes later; that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days and continued even after breaking a leg; that he was offered an MBE; raised £5 million for charity; and he did not, repeat not, cheat when writing his doctorate, even though chunks of it were purloined from other sources.

He just steamed on and on in a blaze of unchallenged triumph and glittering prizes, collecting accolades and media appearances. Obviously becoming a darling of the BBC, where he presented a five-part series on loneliness and was a regular guest on shows and podcasts, always taking pains to appear preeningly modest.

He also collected prestigious visiting fellowships and professorships at other universities, both here and in America, some of them even real.

Within the oblivious plush of his academic world, Arday was granted a leniency and indulgence denied to other academics, purely because of what he was rather than who he was. One journalist who dared to raise questions was investigated by police and threatened by lawyers – at Arday's behest.

The 41-year-old sociology professor resigned from his position at the University of Cambridge this week, following mounting accusations. This is the real disgrace. He has no shame. Arday is still insisting upon his innocence, issuing a simpering statement worthy of a pin-up being ousted from a boyband.

Pausing only to state that his autism is to blame for any mistakes made and that the scrutiny about his life is framed by racism, he launches into prime whine – 'scarcely have imagined', 'thousands celebrated my appointment', 'personal attack', 'far beyond', 'relentless', 'profound toll', 'time to heal', 'I will return'.

'I need time to simply be myself again,' he writes. But does he even know who that is any more?

In a narrative that makes the Emperor's New Clothes look like a legit enterprise, Arday's fantasies are shredding into rags by the day. Simon & Schuster was preparing to publish his memoir imminently – titled Great And Unfortunate Things – in which his declarations reach ever more lunatic heights.

Did no one at this great publishing house – or at Cambridge itself – bother with due diligence or vetting or even common sense?

Perhaps everyone was too glazed by the raptures of diversity, equality and inclusion to raise a sceptical eyebrow at the heroic story of a 'medically impaired' son of Ghanaian immigrants who beat all the odds to flourish in multi-cultural Britain. No one wanted to look too closely to see what lurked beneath Jason's stone of destiny.

My favourite among these dumb clucks is perhaps Professor Hilary Cremin, the head of the Faculty of Education at Cambridge University and Arday's new boss when she welcomed him in as the university's youngest ever black professor in 2023.

In a BBC News report filmed on campus, she is seen holding Arday's hands and gushingly telling him: 'The board were absolutely unanimous, we are so lucky to have you, you are the best in the world in terms of the research that you do.'

But he's not the messiah, Hilary, he's a very naughty boy.

Jason Arday turned out to be the Milli Vanilli of the academic world; a mascot, a jewel whose shine reflected on Cambridge and elsewhere, on all those who eagerly gathered up the banquet of virtuousness points that his presence offered.

It would be absolutely hilarious, were it not so tragic. And so revealing about the state of the nation.

Margot Robbie at the premiere of Barbie in 2023. The movie was so lucrative that everyone involved is keen to make a sequel, but no one can agree the terms

Barbie (2023) was one of the most successful comedy films in history, grossing over a billion dollars and making everyone involved even richer than their previously rich selves.

In fact, it was so lucrative that all participants are pinkly keen to make Barbie 2, even though that was never in the original plan.

However, the monies involved are so fantastical, no one can agree terms. Ryan Gosling (Ken) is asking for a reported $20 million just to sign on, and he also wants a slice of the profits. Margot Robbie (Barbie) had a producer deal which earned her $50 million first time around, but she wants more profit participation, too.

Stalemate has ensued, as Warner Bros is refusing their demands. It's hard to work out if such greed is good, just good business, a feminist triumph or a totem to Hollywood gluttony. 'Don't worry – everyone likes me and thinks I'm cool and pretty,' says Barbie in the original film. For how much longer?

Ouch! Martha Stewart's roast for Meghan

Martha Stewart recently met the Duchess of Sussex and was not impressed. There is a lot she could teach Meghan, whose jam sales are stalling and whose brand is hardly booming

Hush now, for Queen Martha has spoken. The doyenne of domesticity revealed she recently met the Duchess of Sussex – and was not impressed.

'I had dinner with Meghan Markle the other night. We were both guests at a dinner party in California. And she had just gotten back from the Palace,' said Martha Stewart, referring to the Sussexes visit with King Charles and Queen Camilla. 'I didn't talk to her really more than to say a couple of words, but I know she was talking about it,' Stewart added.

You'd think Meghan would make a beeline for Martha. After all she is the original lifestyle life force, the first and best female entrepreneur to build a multi-million-dollar lifestyle empire involving cooking, entertaining, gardening, crafts and home decor.

There is a lot Martha could teach Meghan, whose jam sales are stalling and whose brand is hardly booming. Maybe the duchess was just intimidated – Martha has previously questioned her authenticity.

And this week she said: 'If you're an actress, it's hard to then transition to a princess and then from a princess into a home-making guru on a television show.'

Ouch! That's a bigger sear than the one Martha puts on her ribeye steaks. But isn't it also a very good point?

If former neo-Nazi Joshua Bonehill-Paine (convicted of racial harassment in 2016) is not allowed back into public life, or to stand as a Conservative councillor, why is it acceptable for former fraudster Louise Haigh (convicted in 2014 for an offence of fraud by misrepresentation), allowed to be in charge of the country while her boss Andy Burnham goes on holiday?

Yet another example of two-tier Britain? Hard to argue otherwise.

No Loophole for Lynda, who definitely dunnit

Lynda La Plante hired Nick 'Loophole' Freeman to defend her against a driving ban after she was caught speeding through a 20mph zone in south-west London

Of course everyone is entitled to hire the best lawyers they can to defend themselves in court. And although this thought might be completely unreasonable – I know, it's not my first ride at the irrational rodeo – I lose all respect for those celebrities and sundry millionaires who hire Nick 'Loophole' Freeman to get them off motoring charges.

Mr Loophole specialises in traffic offences such as speeding, drink or drug-driving, reckless driving, you name it. Freeman's company describes itself as a 'market leader in all matters of criminal defence' and he personally has a forensic knowledge of the Road Traffic Act and uses this to dig in and find some obscure technicality that frees his clients – such as Sir Alex Ferguson, Sir David Beckham, Jeremy Clarkson and Van Morrison. He wasn't so lucky this week with Lynda La Plante.

The 83-year-old Prime Suspect writer hired him to defend her against a driving ban after she was caught speeding through a 20mph zone in south-west London. Freeman attempted to argue that a ban would cause La Plante 'exceptional hardship', noting she needed her car for research, she was bedazzled by confusing road signs, that she needed the car to take her dogs for walkies, and if she were banned from driving she would have to sack all her staff and stop writing.

The magistrates were not impressed with this rubbish, and La Plante – who already had nine points on her licence – received a six-month driving ban and a fine. The point is, laws are laws – even if they are stupid laws. If you do the crime, they you must accept the time. Just like ordinary people must.

Hiring someone like Mr Loophole to get you off? There is something morally repugnant about that.